I believe that, after the consecration, there is no more bread and wine. The gifts are changed into the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit.

My EO uncle says: "The Roman Catholic Church believes when the bread and wine are consecrated their substance no longer remains, but is wholly transformed into the body and blood of Christ. This is opposed to the Orthodox view that after the consecration the bread and wine remain with the body and blood of Christ."

I've always taken Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky as a good source of teaching and he says the contrary in his book Orthodox Dogmatic Theology:

"In the Mystery of the Eucharist, at the time when the priest, invoking the Holy Spirit upon the offered Gifts, blesses them with the prayer to God the Father: “Make this bread the precious Body of Thy Christ; and that which is in this cup, the precious Blood of Thy Christ; changing them by Thy Holy Spirit” — the bread and wine actually are changed into the Body and Blood by the coming down of the Holy Spirit. After this moment, although our eyes see bread and wine on the Holy Table, in their very essence, invisibly for sensual eyes, this is the true Body and true Blood of the Lord Jesus, only under the “forms” of bread and wine."

Further [we believe] that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, there no longer remaineth the substance of the bread and of the wine, but the Body Itself and the Blood of the Lord, under the species and form of bread and wine; that is to say, under the accidents of the bread.[...]Further, we believe that by the word “transubstantiation” the manner is not explained, by which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord, — for that is altogether incomprehensible and impossible, except by God Himself, and those who imagine to do so are involved in ignorance and impiety, — but that the bread and the wine are after the consecration, not typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, nor by the communication or the presence of the Divinity alone of the Only-begotten, transmuted into the Body and Blood of the Lord; neither is any accident of the bread, or of the wine, by any conversion or alteration, changed into any accident of the Body and Blood of Christ, but truly, and really, and substantially, doth the bread become the true Body Itself of the Lord, and the wine the Blood Itself of the Lord, as is said above.

I'm not planning on changing my opinion, but, I was wondering how prevalent my uncle's view is amongst the Eastern Orthodox.

I think the Orthodox are comfortable with varying explanation of these things. The underlying teaching is common to us all. But we are happy to accommodate several theories as to how things operate. These remain theories. They remain fluid. We can hold them in balance and not feel the need to choose one and throw the others away.

The manner of the change in the Bread and Wine...?

That it changes noboby doubts...

But the way of it....? We are fine with any number of theories about the way - impanation, consubsubstantion, transubstantiation.... all of them can be found in the Holy Fathers through the centuries. It's not a problem.

I suppose what I am saying is that it is not very worthwhile to strive to find a rigidity in Orthodoxy which is not there on this particular matter.

My personal belief? I should be clear....

I do not believe in consubstantiation.

I do not believe in transubstantiation.

I do not believe in impanation.

Like the rest of Orthodoxy, I DO NOT KNOW.

The manner of what takes place is a mystery which God has not revealed to us.

Something to ponder...................Pope Saint Gelasius wrote an encyclical-"About the Two Natures." He was writing against Eutyches and Nestorius who taught that in the incarnation the human nature of Christ was absorbed in the divine nature.

Pope Gelasius wrote:

"The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease. And assuredly the image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries."

Notice how clear he is with this teaching - the substance of the bread and wine does not cease to exist.

Again though I have to say that this is really not crucially important to the Orthodox. He may be right. He may be wrong.

Thank you, Father. I agree, it is a mystery. I don't know how it becomes the Body and Blood of Christ. However, I wouldn't say that the bread and wine remain because they changed by the Holy Spirit according to the epiclesis in the Liturgy. How they change is a mystery, but, they do change.

Thank you, Father. I agree, it is a mystery. I don't know how it becomes the Body and Blood of Christ. However, I wouldn't say that the bread and wine remain because they changed by the Holy Spirit according to the epiclesis in the Liturgy. How they change is a mystery, but, they do change.

They could very well change. I don't know. The theory of transubstantiation is not very old in Orthodoxy -about 400 years, a result of the Western European struggle between Catholics and Protestants. But it has the benefit of assuring people, very concretely, of the presence of our Lord. What is the teaching of the Coptic Church Fathers?

what i understand (i may be wrong) is that the Body and Blood is allowed by God to still look like bread and wine so that we have the courage to consume it. i don't think we have any strict teaching either as to whether any bread or wine remains.but it treated as completely holy.

so if a kid eats a sweet after Holy Communion and then it drops from the mouth onto the floor, the sweet is burnt, not thrown in the trash. we also don't do anything that might make us bleed or spit after Holy Communion (so going swimming is out) and we don't chew on seeds (the ones where u spit out the husk while getting the seed from inside). these are traditions which are passed down among the people, the priest doesn't preach to us about that, but we pick it up as we go along.

Thank you, Father. I agree, it is a mystery. I don't know how it becomes the Body and Blood of Christ. However, I wouldn't say that the bread and wine remain because they changed by the Holy Spirit according to the epiclesis in the Liturgy. How they change is a mystery, but, they do change.

They could very well change. I don't know. The theory of transubstantiation is not very old in Orthodoxy -about 400 years, a result of the Western European struggle between Catholics and Protestants. But it has the benefit of assuring people, very concretely, of the presence of our Lord. What is the teaching of the Coptic Church Fathers?

I don't know the teachings of the post-schism Fathers. At every Liturgy the priest says: "Amen. Amen. Amen. I believe, I believe, I believe and confess to the last breath; that this is the Life-giving Body that Your Only-Begotten Son, our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ took from our lady, the lady of us all, the holy Mother of God, Saint Mary."

"Having learn these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, And bread strengtheneth man's heart, to make his face to shine with oil, 'strengthen thou thine heart,' by partaking thereof as spiritual, and "make the face of thy soul to shine."" St Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XXII:8 (c. A.D. 350). [Emphasis mine.]

Further [we believe] that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, there no longer remaineth the substance of the bread and of the wine, but the Body Itself and the Blood of the Lord, under the species and form of bread and wine; that is to say, under the accidents of the bread.[...]Further, we believe that by the word “transubstantiation” the manner is not explained, by which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord, — for that is altogether incomprehensible and impossible, except by God Himself, and those who imagine to do so are involved in ignorance and impiety, — but that the bread and the wine are after the consecration, not typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, nor by the communication or the presence of the Divinity alone of the Only-begotten, transmuted into the Body and Blood of the Lord; neither is any accident of the bread, or of the wine, by any conversion or alteration, changed into any accident of the Body and Blood of Christ, but truly, and really, and substantially, doth the bread become the true Body Itself of the Lord, and the wine the Blood Itself of the Lord, as is said above.

The holy synod of Jerusalem had no problem using the word "transubstantiation" but it used a variety of words.... transmutation, change, transubstantiation, conversion, transformation...

Quote

. . .the bread is transmuted, transubstantiated, converted and transformed into the true Body Itself of the Lord, Which was born in Bethlehem of the ever-Virgin, was baptized in the Jordan, suffered, was buried, rose again, was received up, sits at the right hand of the God and Father, and is to come again in the clouds of Heaven; and the wine is converted and transubstantiated into the true Blood Itself of the Lord . . . Source:http://www.cresourcei.org/creeddositheus.html

But the Jerusalem document continues on to reject the Roman Catholic understanding of transubstantiation. It is important to take note of this rejection:

"Further, we believe that by the word “transubstantiation” the manner is not explained, by which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord, — for that is altogether incomprehensible and impossible, except by God Himself, and those who imagine to do so are involved in ignorance and impiety, — but that the bread and the wine are after the consecration, not typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, nor by the communication or the presence of the Divinity alone of the Only-begotten, transmuted into the Body and Blood of the Lord"

Further [we believe] that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, there no longer remaineth the substance of the bread and of the wine, but the Body Itself and the Blood of the Lord, under the species and form of bread and wine; that is to say, under the accidents of the bread.[...]Further, we believe that by the word “transubstantiation” the manner is not explained, by which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord, — for that is altogether incomprehensible and impossible, except by God Himself, and those who imagine to do so are involved in ignorance and impiety, — but that the bread and the wine are after the consecration, not typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, nor by the communication or the presence of the Divinity alone of the Only-begotten, transmuted into the Body and Blood of the Lord; neither is any accident of the bread, or of the wine, by any conversion or alteration, changed into any accident of the Body and Blood of Christ, but truly, and really, and substantially, doth the bread become the true Body Itself of the Lord, and the wine the Blood Itself of the Lord, as is said above.

The holy synod of Jerusalem had no problem using the word "transubstantiation" but it used a variety of words.... transmutation, change, transubstantiation, conversion, transformation...

Quote

. . .the bread is transmuted, transubstantiated, converted and transformed into the true Body Itself of the Lord, Which was born in Bethlehem of the ever-Virgin, was baptized in the Jordan, suffered, was buried, rose again, was received up, sits at the right hand of the God and Father, and is to come again in the clouds of Heaven; and the wine is converted and transubstantiated into the true Blood Itself of the Lord . . . Source:http://www.cresourcei.org/creeddositheus.html

But the Jerusalem document continues on to reject the Roman Catholic understanding of transubstantiation. It is important to take note of this rejection:

"Further, we believe that by the word “transubstantiation” the manner is not explained, by which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord, — for that is altogether incomprehensible and impossible, except by God Himself, and those who imagine to do so are involved in ignorance and impiety, — but that the bread and the wine are after the consecration, not typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, nor by the communication or the presence of the Divinity alone of the Only-begotten, transmuted into the Body and Blood of the Lord"

The Catholic Church does not explain the manner either. It simply says THAT a change has occurred.

The Catholic Church does not explain the manner either. It simply says THAT a change has occurred.

Transubstantiation means that a substance has been changed. It's in the word.

Yes. A real and total change has occurred. That does not tell you how, does not tell you why, does not even tell you when ...All it says is that where there was once bread and wine, there is now the precious Body and pure Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The Catholic Church does not explain the manner either. It simply says THAT a change has occurred.

Transubstantiation means that a substance has been changed. It's in the word.

Yes. A real and total change has occurred. That does not tell you how, does not tell you why, does not even tell you when ...All it says is that where there was once bread and wine, there is now the precious Body and pure Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Is the statement below not taken as infallible teaching from the Council of Trent? Did Trent and the Pope and the Magisterium teach error?

Transubstantiation - "that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood – the species only of the bread and wine remaining – which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation."

The Catholic Church does not explain the manner either. It simply says THAT a change has occurred.

Transubstantiation means that a substance has been changed. It's in the word.

Yes. A real and total change has occurred. That does not tell you how, does not tell you why, does not even tell you when ...All it says is that where there was once bread and wine, there is now the precious Body and pure Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Is the statement below not taken as infallible teaching from the Council of Trent? Did Trent and the Pope and the Magisterium teach error?

Transubstantiation - "that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood – the species only of the bread and wine remaining – which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation

Exactly. There is a real change. The bread and wine are no more accept in appearance. The Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are there in reality.

The Catholic Church does not explain the manner either. It simply says THAT a change has occurred.

Transubstantiation means that a substance has been changed. It's in the word.

Yes. A real and total change has occurred. That does not tell you how, does not tell you why, does not even tell you when ...All it says is that where there was once bread and wine, there is now the precious Body and pure Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Is the statement below not taken as infallible teaching from the Council of Trent? Did Trent and the Pope and the Magisterium teach error?

Transubstantiation - "that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood – the species only of the bread and wine remaining – which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation

Exactly. There is a real change. The bread and wine are no more accept in appearance. The Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are there in reality.

One notes that the change is not 100% real. It is only a partial change with the bread and wine. Transubstantiation occurs but transpeciation does not occur.

The Catholic Church does not explain the manner either. It simply says THAT a change has occurred.

Transubstantiation means that a substance has been changed. It's in the word.

Yes. A real and total change has occurred. That does not tell you how, does not tell you why, does not even tell you when ...All it says is that where there was once bread and wine, there is now the precious Body and pure Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Is the statement below not taken as infallible teaching from the Council of Trent? Did Trent and the Pope and the Magisterium teach error?

Transubstantiation - "that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood – the species only of the bread and wine remaining – which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation

Exactly. There is a real change. The bread and wine are no more accept in appearance. The Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are there in reality.

One notes that the change is not 100% real. It is only a partial change with the bread and wine. Transubstantiation occurs but transpeciation does not occur.

"And make this bread the precious Body of Thy Christ, and that which is in this Cup the precious Blood of Thy Christ; changing [metalavon] them by Thy Holy Spirit, Amen (3)."

The Orthodox Church's ecclesiastical term for the "change" is "metousiosis," which means a change of essence, not a change of substance. Quotes above may have not translated "metousiosis" properly. Yes, the Orthodox believe the gifts are (in essence), "the very Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior," but do not believe the substance is changed.

"Transubstantiation is a Latin and Western," Roman Catholic term, not used in Orthodox ecclesiology.

"And make this bread the precious Body of Thy Christ, and that which is in this Cup the precious Blood of Thy Christ; changing [metalavon] them by Thy Holy Spirit, Amen (3)."

The Orthodox Church's ecclesiastical term for the "change" is "metousiosis," which means a change of essence, not a change of substance. Quotes above may have not translated "metousiosis" properly. Yes, the Orthodox believe the gifts are (in essence), "the very Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior," but do not believe the substance is changed.

"Transubstantiation is a Latin and Western," Roman Catholic term, not used in Orthodox ecclesiology.

How does essence differ from substance? Are not both English translations of the Greek word, ousia?

« Last Edit: December 27, 2011, 07:57:41 AM by Cavaradossi »

Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

"And make this bread the precious Body of Thy Christ, and that which is in this Cup the precious Blood of Thy Christ; changing [metalavon] them by Thy Holy Spirit, Amen (3)."

The Orthodox Church's ecclesiastical term for the "change" is "metousiosis," which means a change of essence, not a change of substance. Quotes above may have not translated "metousiosis" properly. Yes, the Orthodox believe the gifts are (in essence), "the very Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior," but do not believe the substance is changed.

"Transubstantiation is a Latin and Western," Roman Catholic term, not used in Orthodox ecclesiology.

How does essence differ from substance? Are not both English translations of the Greek word, ousia?

Substance means the essential part of a thing that makes it what it is...in other words, its essence.

"And make this bread the precious Body of Thy Christ, and that which is in this Cup the precious Blood of Thy Christ; changing [metalavon] them by Thy Holy Spirit, Amen (3)."

The Orthodox Church's ecclesiastical term for the "change" is "metousiosis," which means a change of essence, not a change of substance. Quotes above may have not translated "metousiosis" properly. Yes, the Orthodox believe the gifts are (in essence), "the very Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior," but do not believe the substance is changed.

"Transubstantiation is a Latin and Western," Roman Catholic term, not used in Orthodox ecclesiology.

I thought substance and essence were the same. Coessential, consubstantial, of one essence...

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

"And make this bread the precious Body of Thy Christ, and that which is in this Cup the precious Blood of Thy Christ; changing [metalavon] them by Thy Holy Spirit, Amen (3)."

The Orthodox Church's ecclesiastical term for the "change" is "metousiosis," which means a change of essence, not a change of substance. Quotes above may have not translated "metousiosis" properly. Yes, the Orthodox believe the gifts are (in essence), "the very Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior," but do not believe the substance is changed.'"Transubstantiation is a Latin and Western," Roman Catholic term, not used in Orthodox ecclesiology.

How does essence differ from substance? Are not both English translations of the Greek word, ousia?

Good question. The Latin version of the Nicene Creed uses a form of "consubstantia" in translation of the Greek "homoousios", so I thought substance and ousia (translated as essence into English) meant the same thing.

"And make this bread the precious Body of Thy Christ, and that which is in this Cup the precious Blood of Thy Christ; changing [metalavon] them by Thy Holy Spirit, Amen (3)."

The Orthodox Church's ecclesiastical term for the "change" is "metousiosis," which means a change of essence, not a change of substance. Quotes above may have not translated "metousiosis" properly. Yes, the Orthodox believe the gifts are (in essence), "the very Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior," but do not believe the substance is changed.

"Transubstantiation is a Latin and Western," Roman Catholic term, not used in Orthodox ecclesiology.

Wasn't the term "metousiosis" used in one of the Ecumenical councils? I think I heard that said somewhere.

I don't know what we are suppose to say and what we aren't, but I do see alot of Orthodox clergy make use of the term Transubstantiation anyway. I don't know why they do this, but I do hear the term among us alot.

Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

Look, the bread and wine become something other than common bread and wine. In the mystery the common bread becomes the Bread from Heaven, which is the Body of Christ as He Himself says, and the common fruit of the vine becomes the Fruit of the True Vine. His Body is food indeed and His Blood drink indeed. The Aristotelian explanation of the RC Church that only "accidents" remain is not in line with Orthodox theology. It is truly Bread after the change, but not common bread any longer. It is truly the Fruit of the True Vine, but no longer common fruit of the vine.

Look, the bread and wine become something other than common bread and wine. In the mystery the common bread becomes the Bread from Heaven, which is the Body of Christ as He Himself says, and the common fruit of the vine becomes the Fruit of the True Vine. His Body is food indeed and His Blood drink indeed. The Aristotelian explanation of the RC Church that only "accidents" remain is not in line with Orthodox theology. It is truly Bread after the change, but not common bread any longer. It is truly the Fruit of the True Vine, but no longer common fruit of the vine.

1. The substance is annihilated and replaced by the substance of Christ.

Thomas Aquinas doesn't teach that the bread and wine are annihilated:

"The substance of the bread or wine, after the consecration, remains neither under the sacramental species, nor elsewhere; yet it does not follow that it is annihilated; for it is changed into the body of Christ; just as if the air, from which fire is generated, be not there or elsewhere, it does not follow that it is annihilated."

1. The substance is annihilated and replaced by the substance of Christ.

Thomas Aquinas doesn't teach that the bread and wine are annihilated:

"The substance of the bread or wine, after the consecration, remains neither under the sacramental species, nor elsewhere; yet it does not follow that it is annihilated; for it is changed into the body of Christ; just as if the air, from which fire is generated, be not there or elsewhere, it does not follow that it is annihilated."

[Emphasis mine.]

That's interesting. The substance of the bread is still there but it has been rearranged or reconfigured to become the substance of Christ?

But the question still remains --- it is only a partial change because the species (accidents) of the bread does not change. So --- how do the accidents of Christ fit into this? Are they co-existent with the accidents of the bread and wine?

The Church may not have officially designated any language as being the official language of the Church, but all the writings of the Church Fathers and the Ecumenical Synods (Councils, to use the Western term), which documented the Church's doctrine, were originally written in Greek. So the Greek language is the primary method to examine when seeking to determine more exactly Church theology.

1. The substance is annihilated and replaced by the substance of Christ.

Thomas Aquinas doesn't teach that the bread and wine are annihilated:

"The substance of the bread or wine, after the consecration, remains neither under the sacramental species, nor elsewhere; yet it does not follow that it is annihilated; for it is changed into the body of Christ; just as if the air, from which fire is generated, be not there or elsewhere, it does not follow that it is annihilated."

[Emphasis mine.]

That's interesting. The substance of the bread is still there but it has been rearranged or reconfigured to become the substance of Christ?

But the question still remains --- it is only a partial change because the species (accidents) of the bread does not change. So --- how do the accidents of Christ fit into this? Are they co-existent with the accidents of the bread and wine?

I'm just guessing... Maybe Christ's accidents are not there like in Revelation 5:6 is says:

"And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth."

Christ had the accidents of a lamb in that passage.

In 1 Corinthians 10:4 "And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ."

Christ had the accidents of a rock in that passage. Remember, this is just a guess. I could be wrong.

The Church may not have officially designated any language as being the official language of the Church, but all the writings of the Church Fathers and the Ecumenical Synods (Councils, to use the Western term), which documented the Church's doctrine, were originally written in Greek. So the Greek language is the primary method to examine when seeking to determine more exactly Church theology.

All the Church Fathers? How strange. I was under the impression they hadn't all been born yet.

The Church may not have officially designated any language as being the official language of the Church, but all the writings of the Church Fathers and the Ecumenical Synods (Councils, to use the Western term), which documented the Church's doctrine, were originally written in Greek. So the Greek language is the primary method to examine when seeking to determine more exactly Church theology.

Sts. Ambrose, John Cassian, etc. would be quite surprised that they don't count as Church Fathers since they wrote in Latin.

Look, the bread and wine become something other than common bread and wine. In the mystery the common bread becomes the Bread from Heaven, which is the Body of Christ as He Himself says, and the common fruit of the vine becomes the Fruit of the True Vine. His Body is food indeed and His Blood drink indeed. The Aristotelian explanation of the RC Church that only "accidents" remain is not in line with Orthodox theology. It is truly Bread after the change, but not common bread any longer. It is truly the Fruit of the True Vine, but no longer common fruit of the vine.

The Church may not have officially designated any language as being the official language of the Church, but all the writings of the Church Fathers and the Ecumenical Synods (Councils, to use the Western term), which documented the Church's doctrine, were originally written in Greek. So the Greek language is the primary method to examine when seeking to determine more exactly Church theology.

All the Church Fathers? How strange. I was under the impression they hadn't all been born yet.

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

I think this is just another example of where Orthodox and Catholics, or Chalcedonians (Orthodox and Catholic) and Oriental are saying the same things in different ways. We surely agree on several of the same premises, perhaps the Catholics over emphasize the mechanics of the process, which is generally the difference between Latin and Orthodox theology, the Latins come from a more scientific approach, Orthodox seem to be a bit more poetic. However, in spirit, Catholics and Orthodox most definitely agree on most theology.

The only difference I would say is concrete rather then semantics is that I understand Transubstantiation to explain that at a single moment in time, the Consecrated Bread and Wine become the Body and Blood, whereas in Orthodox generally it is said that the entire Divine Liturgy, beginning to end, its a process of becoming the Body and Blood, and there is no true instant moment of change where we can say this is or is not the actual Body and Blood of Christ.

Of course I do have a question for the Eastern Orthodox. I understand that in the Tewahedo Tradition (and perhaps the Orientals as a whole but I can only speak for my own jurisdiction) that the Godhead of the Word is truly Present in the Offering after Consecration. I am not fully familiar with the Eastern elaborations on the distinction between the Energies and Essence of God, we in Ethiopia do believe the Godhead is Immutable however it has been explained to me that the Ethiopian fathers interpret Energies in a more verb, less noun sense then the Eastern Orthodox tend to, which is why the Eastern Orthodox tend to over-emphasize the distinction. That being said, does the Eastern Orthodox teach that the Divine Essence is truly Present in the Holy Communion or is it as with the other Divine Mysteries, God's Energies (i.e., active Grace)?

If the EO teaches it is Energies and not Essence present in the Offering, that would be another concrete rather then semantic difference, as the Latins reject the distinction doctrine. I understand the Ethiopian fathers to ride the middle, not to explain the Godhead as being necessarily mutable and yet not allowing the Godhead to necessarily be known in the Latin scholastic sense.

stay blessed,habte selassie

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

I think this is just another example of where Orthodox and Catholics, or Chalcedonians (Orthodox and Catholic) and Oriental are saying the same things in different ways. We surely agree on several of the same premises, perhaps the Catholics over emphasize the mechanics of the process, which is generally the difference between Latin and Orthodox theology, the Latins come from a more scientific approach, Orthodox seem to be a bit more poetic. However, in spirit, Catholics and Orthodox most definitely agree on most theology.

The only difference I would say is concrete rather then semantics is that I understand Transubstantiation to explain that at a single moment in time, the Consecrated Bread and Wine become the Body and Blood, whereas in Orthodox generally it is said that the entire Divine Liturgy, beginning to end, its a process of becoming the Body and Blood, and there is no true instant moment of change where we can say this is or is not the actual Body and Blood of Christ.

Of course I do have a question for the Eastern Orthodox. I understand that in the Tewahedo Tradition (and perhaps the Orientals as a whole but I can only speak for my own jurisdiction) that the Godhead of the Word is truly Present in the Offering after Consecration. I am not fully familiar with the Eastern elaborations on the distinction between the Energies and Essence of God, we in Ethiopia do believe the Godhead is Immutable however it has been explained to me that the Ethiopian fathers interpret Energies in a more verb, less noun sense then the Eastern Orthodox tend to, which is why the Eastern Orthodox tend to over-emphasize the distinction. That being said, does the Eastern Orthodox teach that the Divine Essence is truly Present in the Holy Communion or is it as with the other Divine Mysteries, God's Energies (i.e., active Grace)?

If the EO teaches it is Energies and not Essence present in the Offering, that would be another concrete rather then semantic difference, as the Latins reject the distinction doctrine. I understand the Ethiopian fathers to ride the middle, not to explain the Godhead as being necessarily mutable and yet not allowing the Godhead to necessarily be known in the Latin scholastic sense.

stay blessed,habte selassie

Energy is the Godhead (Divine Being) as it can be communicated (communed). I hope this helps

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

I think this is just another example of where Orthodox and Catholics, or Chalcedonians (Orthodox and Catholic) and Oriental are saying the same things in different ways. We surely agree on several of the same premises, perhaps the Catholics over emphasize the mechanics of the process, which is generally the difference between Latin and Orthodox theology, the Latins come from a more scientific approach, Orthodox seem to be a bit more poetic. However, in spirit, Catholics and Orthodox most definitely agree on most theology.

The only difference I would say is concrete rather then semantics is that I understand Transubstantiation to explain that at a single moment in time, the Consecrated Bread and Wine become the Body and Blood, whereas in Orthodox generally it is said that the entire Divine Liturgy, beginning to end, its a process of becoming the Body and Blood, and there is no true instant moment of change where we can say this is or is not the actual Body and Blood of Christ.

Of course I do have a question for the Eastern Orthodox. I understand that in the Tewahedo Tradition (and perhaps the Orientals as a whole but I can only speak for my own jurisdiction) that the Godhead of the Word is truly Present in the Offering after Consecration. I am not fully familiar with the Eastern elaborations on the distinction between the Energies and Essence of God, we in Ethiopia do believe the Godhead is Immutable however it has been explained to me that the Ethiopian fathers interpret Energies in a more verb, less noun sense then the Eastern Orthodox tend to, which is why the Eastern Orthodox tend to over-emphasize the distinction. That being said, does the Eastern Orthodox teach that the Divine Essence is truly Present in the Holy Communion or is it as with the other Divine Mysteries, God's Energies (i.e., active Grace)?

If the EO teaches it is Energies and not Essence present in the Offering, that would be another concrete rather then semantic difference, as the Latins reject the distinction doctrine. I understand the Ethiopian fathers to ride the middle, not to explain the Godhead as being necessarily mutable and yet not allowing the Godhead to necessarily be known in the Latin scholastic sense.

stay blessed,habte selassie

Energy is the Godhead (Divine Being) as it can be communicated (communed). I hope this helps

I would not say that the Holy Gifts are only the energies of the God-Man and not His full and utter divinity. I may be wrong but I would fiercely resist that idea.

Energy is the Godhead (Divine Being) as it can be communicated (communed). I hope this helps

I would not say that the Holy Gifts are only the energies of the God-Man and not His full and utter divinity. I may be wrong but I would fiercely resist that idea.

Dear Fathers,

Are there any scholarly/theological books or essays written by Orthodox Christians or the Church Fathers that discuss this topic?

Respectfully in Christ,Maria

« Last Edit: January 07, 2012, 07:16:35 PM by Maria »

Logged

The memory of God should be treasured in our hearts like the precious pearl mentioned in the Holy Gospel. Our life's goal should be to nurture and contemplate God always within, and never let it depart, for this steadfastness will drive demons away from us. - Paraphrased from St. Philotheus of Sinai Writings from the Philokalia: On Prayer of the Heart,Translated from the Russian by E. Kadloubovksy and G.E.H. Palmer, Faber and Faber, London, Boston, 1992 printing.

Are there any scholarly/theological books or essays written by Orthodox Christians or the Church Fathers that discuss this topic?

Well, I remember Saint Symeon the New Theologian wrote something which touches on this...

"The grace of the Spirit, also called the fire of the Deity, belongs to ourGod and Savior by nature, essentially. But his Body does not have thesame origin, for it comes from the holy and all-pure flesh of the Theotokos,from her all-spotless blood. In assuming it from her, He made it into Hisown....Ever since then, the Son of God and of the All-pure imparts to thesaints, that which proceeds from the nature and the essence of hisco-eternal Father, the grace of the Spirit, that is, divinity; andfrom the nature and essence of her who really gave birth to Him, He givesthem the Flesh which He assumed from her."

"Forgiveness of sin and participation in life are bestowed on us not only inthe bread and wine of communion, but in the divinity which attends themand mysteriously mingles with them without confusion ...If Christ isGod, His holy flesh is no longer mere flesh, but flesh and God inseparableand yet without confusion visible in the flesh, that is, the bread, to thebodily eyes. In His divinity He is invisible to the eyes of the body but isperceived with the eyes of the soul."